February 1 2009

Transformers Super Bowl Commercial

ravageThe Transformers Revenge of the Fallen Super Bowl commercial has shown up online.

Seems anti-climatic, and gives me even less reason to watch the Super Bowl except to see Bruce Springsteen at halftime.  As this commercial was scheduled for the first moments of the third quarter, I figured I’d stick around… now I won’t.  As you can see from the picture to the right, one of the biggest reveals is that Ravage is indeed in the movie, and for long time Transformer’s fans, this is major.  Course, he looks nothing like he did years ago, but oh well.

Without further ado, here is the commercial from YouTube, or you can download a high definition version here.

Well, there is no question it is a Michael Bay film… stuff is blowing up real pretty like.  While I know some of what is going on in these scenes, I will respect those people who wish to stay spoiler free.  For those who do want to know, I suggest you check out the Transformers Live Action blog for a breakdown of what you are seeing.  Overall it just looks like the first movie which means I’ll go see it and then complain about it, but would you expect any less from me at this point?

share tweet share

Movies | | | | | | |


  • Meaghan

    I've noticed while reading your blog that you're very critical of what the less-than-knowledgeable of us consider to be the summer blockbusters, much due to your extensive knowledge of characters, character abilities, story lines, etc…. these last two posts are the most recent examples that I'm referring to. You may want to consider that , while die-hard fans are likely to flock to these movies (many of which, like you, will only go to pick them apart), the greater public will go to simply see effects and action. Since the economy is so poor, it only makes sense for Hollywood to give the larger portion of the public what they're asking for. It would be confusing to many of us why one character can jump around like a rabbit on crack while the rest do not, unless, of course, the movie spends more time on character development and take those moments away from the precious crowd-drawing action sequences. While this can, in the long run, alienate many die-hard fans, I don't believe that is their objective (obviously). I can only imagine that they are thinking short-term, as many of us are now. Big bucks now, make up with die-hards in future installments of the franchise… make sense? Of course, by then many die-hards won't have anything to do with said franchise, yet that may be a risk Hollywood is willing to make at this point. Theater movies are considered a luxury that multi-member families aren't willing to spend money on today, especially considering the economic pro's of Netflix (shout-out to another of your posts) combined with the electronic extravaganza that such a family may have in their home… one that, mind you, is exactly what they're struggling to keep up on their payments for right now. The immediate draw to the theater is what Hollywood is betting on and spending money to include in their movies and promotions, more so than keeping within the parameters of character consistency and storyline integrity. These are all personal opinions, of course, and I have absolutely no problem with your comments regarding maintaining these parameters. As a huge Stephen King fan, I can imagine that, when previews for "Bag of Bones" start running, I'll take issue with many of the concepts the studios will (not "may") take liberty with, as I did with the movie "The Mist" (especially the heart-crushing conclusion!). Yet, I'll always try to understand the reason such embellishments are included… ie: economic distress, boring chapters/characters in the novel or comic book, over-involved character aspects, etc. It's all about the dollar, right? What I'm saying is, maybe your personal knowledge (and possible love) of the story is more of a detriment to just you, and not necessarily to the silver screen version of the story. Honestly, if not for what I considered a simplistic plot and eye-popping action sequences in the first Transformers movie, I would have absolutely no interest in seeing the second installment. I know nothing about the characters/storyline and actually prefer it that way. Had I been forced to sit through an additional 20 minutes of explanations in the first film to get to the "money shots", it would deter me from renting the 2nd one. In this case, less is more. Am I going to see it at the theater? No. Will I rent it? Without question. Why? I don't get to see movies at the theater anymore because I have a 2 year old, however, the first one was a cacophony of sensual assaults and that was what I was looking for at that moment. I know a moment such as that will strike again and Transformers 2 will be there for me. If I were to have the opportunity to see this movie in the theater, I probably would, simply because some movies are meant to be seen on the big screen and others offer the same viewing experience in your home (action films vs., for example, a modern day love story). Wow, what a lengthy blathering! I'm going to shut up now. I just wanted to offer my view of why Hollywood dickers around with your (and my) beloved stories and characters. Not that you didn't know any of this before reading my personal little epic. Maybe I felt you just needed some reminding. :P

    • I actually tried to keep that in mind when I reviewed the first movie, and I still walked away disappointed with the extreme one dimensional characterizations of the key players, spotty directing, action sequences that lacked any coherency that allowed the human eye to tell what the heck was going on, over-the-top slapsticky humor and so on. Oddly enough, my hopes ARE a bit higher for this outing as we won't have to deal with that insanely slow first act of the film that introduces us to the universe and concepts of the Transformers. Even barring my love for the original concept of the franchise, Michael Bay is incapable of constructing a sensible film, and I would be hard pressed to name one of his movies that didn't make me want to wash my eyes after watching it.

      As for G.I. Joe, again, barring my fondness for the original franchise… that looks pretty schlocky. Snake-Eyes (the last guy you see hopping at the end of the trailer) is a ninja, so his hopping around makes sense, the others defying the laws of physics, not so much. It just "smells" of "Hey, the source material is silly, so lets not even try to make an actual good film, they'll still eat it up."

      I do hear you, though, and that actually is the approach I have been trying to take a bit more with properties such as these.